iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

U.S. To Shelve Bush's Nuclear-Missile Shield

ANNE GEARAN   09/17/09 11:38 PM ET   AP

Us Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama abruptly canceled a long-planned missile shield for Eastern Europe on Thursday, replacing a Bush-era project that was bitterly opposed by Russia with a plan he contended would better defend against a growing threat of Iranian missiles.

The United States will no longer seek to erect a missile base and radar site in Poland and the Czech Republic, poised at Russia's hemline. That change is bound to please the Russians, who had never accepted U.S. arguments, made by both the Bush and Obama administrations, that the shield was intended strictly as a defense against Iran and other "rogue states."

Scrapping the planned shield, however, means upending agreements with the host countries that had cost those allies political support among their own people. Obama called Polish and Czech leaders ahead of his announcement, and a team of senior diplomats and others flew to Europe to lay out the new plan.

"Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Obama said in announcing the shift, which U.S. officials said was based mainly on a May U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's program to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three years to five years longer than originally expected.

The replacement system would link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.

The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe. That would augment a larger stockpile aboard ships. The replacement system would cost an estimated $2.5 billion, compared with $5 billion over the same timeframe under the old plan. The cost savings would be less, however, because the Pentagon is locked into work on some elements of the old system.

The change comes days before Obama is to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the United Nations and the Group of 20 economic summit. Medvedev reacted positively, calling it a "responsible move."

"The U.S. president's decision is a well-thought-out and systematic one," said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian Parliament. "Now we can talk about restoration of the strategic partnership between Russia and the United States."

At the same time, Russia's top diplomat warned that Moscow remains opposed to new punitive sanctions on Iran to stop what the West contends is a drive toward nuclear weapons.

The spokesman of Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy, Kazem Jalali, called the decision positive, though in a backhanded way.

"It would be more positive if President Obama entirely give up such plans, which were based on the Bush administration's Iran-phobic policies," Jalali told The Associated Press.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Iran's changing capabilities drove the decision, not any concern about the Russians, but he acknowledged that the replacement system was likely to allay some of Russia's concerns.

American reaction quickly split along partisan lines. Longtime Republican supporters of the missile defense idea called the switch naive and a sop to Russia. Democrats welcomed the move, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling it "brilliant."

"The administration apparently has decided to empower Russia and Iran at the expense of the national security interests of the United States and our allies in Europe," said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

The Democratic chairman of that committee, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, told the AP the shift reflected a proper understanding of the current threat from Iran.

"It's about short- and medium-range missiles," Skelton said.

The Obama administration said the shift is a common sense answer to the evolution of both the threat and the U.S. understanding of it. Iran has not shown that it is close to being able to lob a long-range missile, perhaps with a nuclear warhead, at U.S. allies in Europe.

The Bush administration had calculated that Iran might be able to do that as soon as 2012, but the new assessment pushes the date back to 2015 to 2020, a U.S. government official familiar with the report told The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the report remains classified.

Previous intelligence assessed that Iran would have an ICBM capable of menacing Europe and the United States sometime between 2012 and 2015, another U.S. government official said.

Iran has improved its ability to launch shorter-range missiles, however, and despite the crude nature of some of those weapons the Pentagon now considers them a greater short-term threat.

Obama's shift comes as a confidential report seen by The Associated Press says Iran experts at the U.N nuclear monitoring agency believe Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and has worked on developing a missile system that can carry an atomic warhead.

The document appeared to be the "secret annex" on Iran's alleged nuclear arms program that the U.S., France, Israel and other members of the International Atomic Energy Agency say is being withheld by agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei – claims the nuclear watchdog denies.

The United States will join international talks with Iran next month, a major shift that makes good on Obama's campaign pledge to engage the main U.S. adversary in the Middle East.

___

Associated Press writers Jennifer Loven, Pauline Jelinek, Desmond Butler and Pamela Hess in Washington and Nasser Karimi in Tehran and George Jahn in Vienna contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama abruptly canceled a long-planned missile shield for Eastern Europe on Thursday, replacing a Bush-era project that was bitterly opposed by Russia with a plan h...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama abruptly canceled a long-planned missile shield for Eastern Europe on Thursday, replacing a Bush-era project that was bitterly opposed by Russia with a plan h...
Filed by Lila Shapiro  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,887
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (29 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
boomslang
11:34 AM on 09/18/2009
Come on, The Obama administration is moving beyond cold war tactics and "projection of power"
this was always an unproven defence system a favorite of the Republicans and the Military-Industrial complex. Obama is right to redirect the priorities of this nation. and it is a classic right wing canard to implicate the safety of the American people, when their shiny new toy is taken away from them
11:45 AM on 09/18/2009
we shouldnt even worry about the russian military anyway they're under supplied and under equipped, not to mention the horrible post soviet training they recieve nowadays. their military is pretty much a non threat to us with the exception of the spetznaz and some of their tank corps.
03:52 AM on 09/18/2009
I for one never understood why ivan was so against us building a missle defense system.... i mean unless they were planning to launch ICBMs at europe it really dosn't affect them much, if it was an OFFENSIVE system then that would be a legit reason for anger, but it's not. I mean i always thought it was kind of a waste of money but it always bothered me why russia cared so much about it...
08:56 AM on 09/18/2009
How would you feel if Russia wanted to put up a missle defense system in Cuba? I wouldn't want that. Reason being; point a defensive missle at Miami and it becomes an offensive missle...
11:22 AM on 09/18/2009
you cant use a kinetic missile for offensive purposes.... its designed to punch holes not blow things up.
11:26 AM on 09/18/2009
You cannot use a kinetic missile for offensive purposes, and if you did the resulting damge would be minimal at best.
09:03 AM on 09/18/2009
I assume you mean Iran? You need to understand that Iran must demonize everything the US does as part of the means to oppress and brainwash its people. Its the same reason that Cuba and the Russians will never be our friends. Without enemies, countries cannot justify their military initiatives.
11:20 AM on 09/18/2009
no no not iran... ivan, mother russia, the great bear, get my meaning.
03:29 AM on 09/18/2009
Technically and financially, it's the right move. But some of our eastern European allies, who had to spend significant political capital to get their countries to accept this US project, may be a lot slower to trust America in the future.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
capitaldysfunction
White male never voted Republican
02:30 AM on 09/18/2009
Our economy, thanks to the Republicans, is not strong enough to continue defending Europe for free. If they want a missile shield they, the Europeans, should ante up and pay for it. For the same economic reasons we should set earlier dates for withdrawal from Iraq to the extent practicable. We simply are not a great superpower anymore. If the world wants our protection let them buy it.
09:17 AM on 09/18/2009
wow, that "thanks to the republicans" really gives your post credibility.
11:00 PM on 09/17/2009
According to news Thursday, Sept 17, President Obama is terminating the long-range missile defense project and turning to a short-range, theater missile defense. If the decision is confirmed, in actual military defense terms, it amounts to basic common sense. First, it ends the illusion of a Chinese wall -or Maginot line- type of defense which has never worked in history, yet it tends to create a delusive perception. Second, it helps changing for good the relations with other major military powers, whether allies or partners in the global security architecture. Third, it signals that the U.S. may actually embrace common security interests, rather than pursuing unilateral security goals. These three common sense components of the Administration's decision will become stronger if it is capable of clearly making its case at home and following with its policy implications abroad: nuclear disarmament, global security cooperation, conflict settlement in the Persian Gulf and Palestine.
09:05 AM on 09/18/2009
Except that earlier this year, Iran launched a Satellite, which requires long range ICBM technology. The concept that Iran has changed its programs in the last few months is pure poppycock.

Obama is assuaging the Russians, and he'll be very sorry for it. Hopefully we'll not all be sorry for it.
12:57 PM on 09/18/2009
Diplomacy decisions are often made on claims which are not the real ones. Yet the fact that the U.S. is now making a decision on the basis of a larger strategic context shows how the previous claims about Iran being the target of the system were likewise bogus.

The system was always an imaginary construct with various rationales: illusions of an autonomous defense shield; original ideas of ending mutual assured destruction and then making it into bargaining leverage; a direct military link to 'new' Europe in the face of French-German opposition to the Iraq war; satisfying Israel's military concepts; feeding the military industrial complex, public images of enemy, dynamics of unilateral defense.

POTUS arguing it as defense policy rationalization makes sense, but NATO SG weighing in to propose a defense partnership with Moscow does not address the fundamentals of international security cooperation, that require to move toward equal or symmetric defense and security interdependence. The West -with or without Russia- cannot demand from Iran to do what the West itself is not willing to do or demand from Israel to do. Anyone understands that, even those who, on the basis of a particular interpretation of their self-interest, are in favor of such inequality. Of course, the Tehran regime and its own progeny do not help much either.

Real international security rationality remains caught up between a rock and a hard place, but its space for action appears to be expanding a little with yesterday's Washington decision.
08:42 PM on 09/17/2009
Dear friends,
Sure you know the case of Panfilo the black cuban that was condemned in Cuba to two years in jail for yelling "Hunger, what we have is hunger!!!
It’s possible that Panfilo’s unfair condemn has been commuted to a confinement in one of Havana’s Psychiatric Hospitals.
We all know that it is a much worst punishment then been locked in jail. In a psychiatric hospital Panfilo will be “put under medication” without need it, he will be “helped” with electroshock without need it, he will stay there for undetermined time.
We all know this kind of “medical treatment” designed for break the opposites will, we all know the case Mederos…. one of the torturer of Havana’s Psychiatric Hospital that was recognized living in Miami and was judged and condemn with the help of the victims …. so, do not stop asking freedom for Panfilo because now he is worst that before……. Freedom for Panfilo!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JudgeMoonbox
09:15 PM on 09/17/2009
"Sure you know the case of Panfilo the black cuban that was condemned in Cuba to two years in jail for yelling 'Hunger, what we have is hunger!!!' "

What does this have to do with a system officially to prevent Iranian missiles?
08:58 AM on 09/18/2009
When you have nothing relevant to say on the topic, it's better to change the subject...
07:53 PM on 09/17/2009
American politics is hypocrisy at its best and despicable. I don't understand how a country, the U.S., that owes so much to Russia treats them so bad and absolute ingratitute. Let's take the war in Iraq. If Russia had decided to support Saddam, American troops wiould be still trying to go into Baghdad. If Russia would support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the thousands of dead in both conflicts would surpass the Viet Nam war easily and only God knows how many prisoners of war would be held by both countries' militias. If Russia would have decided to support Ossama Bin Laden, like we supported him during the old USSR invasion, I'm sure that Afghanistan would have been Bush's Waterloo as it was for the old USSR. Furthermore, if we didn't like missiles in Cuba, what makes anybody think that the Russians would like them? We should pay favors with other favors, not with missiles. Let's hope that president Obama ends that love affair wiht Bush's policies and behave more like when he was campaigning. He promised change and we expect change, not same ol', same ol'.
09:15 AM on 09/18/2009
Wow, talk about being misguided.

How about the counterpoint. If Russia supported us in Iran and Cuba and Venezuela we might have global peace. Please try to get a clue.
06:35 PM on 09/17/2009
I agree with President Obama. Best to use tried and proven methods. We don't have the money to spend on new weapons systems. Let's work on our debt that George W. Bush left behind when he wrecked the economy. Let's also work on patching up international relationships. The more alliances we have, the fewer weapon systems we need.
06:55 PM on 09/17/2009
So how does throwing our friends under the bus "patch up" international relationships? Obama is retreating from our obligations. He's weakening our existing alliances in hope of enacting a fantasy.
07:18 PM on 09/17/2009
Which obligations is he retreating from?
05:35 PM on 09/17/2009
President Reagan was the first President to get behind this idea over a quarter century ago. There are several problems with a missile defense system and the problems cannot be resolved reliably. First, whoever launches can use missiles that "wobble" in their trajectory. This keeps their path less predictable and makes them almost impossible to intercept. Next, the system can be overwhelmed by multiple launches of cheaper missiles without real warheads. This reduces the odds of interception. There are plenty of other problems as well. Of course, the Iranians have the problems of developing a deliverable weapon, which they are far from doing. Next, their missile guidance is not very accurate. Iran also knows that if, for some reason, they lobbed one at us, we have choices among using air or land or sea-based missiles and we would know with certainty who launched it. We need not fear Iranian missiles.
photo
Guytar
I'm sorry that I made you cry
05:49 PM on 09/17/2009
Iran has never threatened to attack anyone outside of it's borders.
05:56 PM on 09/17/2009
Uh, yeah, expect for that pesky promise to wipe Israel off the map. Its kind of a threat.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
greeneyes51654m
Retired, finally...
12:26 AM on 09/18/2009
Then I guess you weren't born when they attacked Iraq
05:58 PM on 09/17/2009
It seems unlikely that a country that currently doesn't have missiles at all will be designing "wobbly" missiles before we can have technology to deal with them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robeson
09:49 PM on 09/17/2009
danialthom it was only in the CNN TV studios that the most unreliable missile on the planet was intercepted, so sad you and others believe this nonsense.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Emerald1943
05:10 PM on 09/17/2009
You know, sometimes I think the rethugs can't see any further than their own noses. If we are to have a powerful enemy in this world, it will be China. Without Russia as an ally down the road, we will not have a chance against them if it comes to that. Dog forbid that it does, but I am for any move that will make for more peace and less war. I believe China would not go after both the US and Russia together. Our friendship with Russia may just be the deterrent...it sure will cost less than a bunch of missiles!

I'm just sayin'.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:29 PM on 09/17/2009
Why do most Americans believe that you **NEED** an enemy?
You don't.
China has a DEFENSIVE military, with a budget less than 1/10 of that of the US. Same with other countries like Russia, India etc. The US spends on its military more than the rest of the world combined. Instead of thinking what your next enemy will be, I think your country should start considering making friends. Real ones. And that means you have to accept them as EQUALS.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Emerald1943
05:45 PM on 09/17/2009
Hi Amanda! Glad to see you here! I agree that we don't need an enemy. But what we have from the MSM in the US is pretty consistent about the "threat" of China. I am hoping that President Obama can change this rhetoric and the US military-industrial complex's need for constant war. It is breaking us financially. I was most pleased when he discussed the possibility of total nuclear disarmament with Russia. We need friends...after all, we're all on this same planet together. If we can develop a deep and lasting friendship with Russia, then maybe other countries will join in. We must curtail our desire to "police" the world!

My thoughts are a little jumbled, but I think you can catch my drift!
05:51 PM on 09/17/2009
Russia does not have a defensive military..for pete's sake they've the most imperialistic country in the world. They have serious aspirations to re-take the ukraine and georgia. They already have a presence in Georgia. Thats hardly defensive.

You're right about china and india however.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Okieborn
Equal Rights For All !
05:09 PM on 09/17/2009
I voted for President Obama and volunteered for Change and Hope !!
I do believe this is the first time President Obama has cut one of Bush's ideas !!!
06:02 PM on 09/17/2009
Usually "Hope" is just that. Voting for obama was like buying a lottery ticket; it made you feel good about yourself, but didn't have any positive effect at the end of the day.
photo
Ice9
If money is speech, then speech is never free
06:41 PM on 09/17/2009
A vote for John McCain would have vindicated Bush's policies and continued the slide.

Wasn't this Missile Shield all smoke and mirrors, anyway? A boondoggle that cost a fortune, didn't perform as advertised and angered friends and allies?

Sounds like a metaphor for the whole Bush Presidency. USA! USA! USA!
06:59 PM on 09/17/2009
Please stop with the BS. The election is over. McCain is so not Bush. Not that McCain is any better. But saying their the same is just utter stupidity.
05:05 PM on 09/17/2009
It is time when other countries in other parts of the world, look at the map and decide if they need a missile defense to protect them.

It is hardly the US sole responsibility to develop and deploy a world wide missile defense system or for that matter conduct war's in far away places with the fear justification that we are directly threatened.

We took care of the threat in Iraq in 3 weeks, determined there are WMD and then stayed to change a Government that is far outside our direct neighborhood.

A missile shield was a technology dream and there are other countries who have as much brain power and funding to protect their own backyards.
05:53 PM on 09/17/2009
Well oldgeek, we're the only country in the world with the technology, so your point is a rather silly one.

We have alliances to protect each other. That's what NATO is all about.
photo
Guytar
I'm sorry that I made you cry
04:49 PM on 09/17/2009
I think President Obama has drilled down into this Bush-Cheney neocon policy about this fantasy missile shield against imaginary intercontinental nuclear attacks from Iran or North Korea.

The dunderhead US media explained that this missile shield would require US military bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. They did not explain that Russia would never tolerate US military bases in their own region.

Get real everybody. Russia still has thousands of nuclear warheads as a deterrent against American ambitions as the world superpower. It always did. Bush-neocon propaganda was that the US was the last remaining 21st century superpower. Russia still has enough intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads to completely destroy the United States and the rest of the world many times over. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, soldiers and civilians are getting slaughtered every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What for?
04:49 PM on 09/17/2009
Let's just wait and see if Russia cancels the sale of its S300 advanced air defense system to Iran. THAT would be a very acceptable quid pro quo and leave Iran a sitting duck to Israeli defensive strikes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:09 PM on 09/17/2009
"Israeli defensive strikes"

Congratulations! You just won the Best Oxymoron of 2009 Award.
06:31 PM on 09/17/2009
Wow I did? Cool! Now, can I get a date with you? :-}p
photo
Guytar
I'm sorry that I made you cry
05:33 PM on 09/17/2009
Russia has supplied a billion dollar TOR M1 air defence system to Iran.
Russia is building Iran's basic civilian nuclear energy infrastructure.
Russia is a strategic and economic partner with Iran.
S300 anti aircraft missiles are just the next level of defence.

China has a 10 year multi billion dollar oil contract with Iran.
China has supplied anti-ship missiles and combat aircraft to Iran.
China will not tolerate attacks on a major trading partner.

India is working on a long term contract for supply of natural gas from Iran.
04:25 PM on 09/17/2009
The second coming......





Of Jimmy Carter
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fourex
04:28 PM on 09/17/2009
I feel your pain. The Rapture is near.